Predestination and Calvinism

[childeye]

No one has God's character. Are you serious?

I'm deadly serious. That's what it means to be His children and born of His Spirit. Hence Jesus did have God's Character as the Image of God and the son of God, which is what we are believing in at the heart of the Gospel. He is even referred to as the second Adam who also was also made in God's Image. What do you mean that no one has God's Character?

The innocence you refer to would be reflected in our attribute of Morality. Of course, we have lost that innocence.

Are you aware that your posts imply that mankinds will has not been altered, and we still have the same freewill as when we were innocent and unable to be wicked?

 

[childeye]

The "god" of THIS WORLD has blinded some. Because ii's easier to follow a god or find pleasure in a god rather than in God.
1 Corinthians 2:14

This is what I take your meaning to be. That the Carnal minded and blind followers of the god of this world, cannot discern the spiritual things of God. But then you seem to contrarily imply they can freely choose not to with their freewill. Are they blind or not?

GOD does not blind anybody and has revealed Himself from the beginning:

• Romans 1:19-20

I just said earlier that Adam had God's Character revealed in himself, and you asked if I was serious. Now you claim the same thing I said. You probably misunderstood me. As pertaining to blindness, the Gospel does make some blind as part of God's purpose. John 9:39.

But some prefer to ignore Him:
Romans 1:21-22

I call it taking God for granted in vanity, like claiming I am wise because I freely chose to be. Why say some people took God for granted when Romans 2:1 implies all, or at least the vast majority of mankind, has done so?

 

[K2CHRIST]

I think it's partly because I'm talking about the term freewill in the moral/immoral purviews, and you're talking about freewill as in being alive and sentient. We should remember, that when mankind was created and given life, he was innocent without any knowledge of good and evil. They therefore had no comprehension of a lie, nor distrust, nor betrayal. They were not able to choose between good and evil, and also did not have any disability to distrust the intentions of their Maker.

The issue that God is dealing with in His creation, is vanity. He intends to use the creation to reveal Who He Is.

God does have a plan which is why scripture says this: Romans 8:20.

Actually we are saved by grace through faith. There's a difference. For since the high things in all their wisdom take God for granted, God chooses the lowly things to be rich in faith. 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28. Therefore it is by grace and not of ourselves lest we boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.

Respectfully, everything dealing with the comprehension of the meanings of words are semantics. We must deal with them if we are to listen coherently.

I therefore do not count it wise to dismiss will and freewill as the same thing. The term 'will' is a primary noun denoting a personal behavioral character. The will of the flesh is not the same as the will of the Spirit, and they are in fact contrary to one another. Galatians 5:17. Therefore a carnal willed person cannot serve God. When you put an adjective in front of the word 'will', it then describes the will. In this case the word 'free'. 'Free' however gets it's meaning from what it is free from. In the dictionary terminology, the will is supposedly free from fate or divine force, or in the moral purview, free to choose between good and evil. I have already pointed out that God did not create us free to choose between good and evil. I also would point out that without a pure image of God, it corrupts the soul, which is why death entered in. Therefore, righteousness itself is not a mere choice, but rather the product of the indwelling Spirit of God and life. If we do not attribute righteousness to God, but count righteousness as our choice, then we take God for granted in vanity by counting Him as our prerogative. This is what righteousness by works of the law refers to.


Respectfully, I feel you need to re-evaluate your conclusion that we must have a choice to have life. There has never been a time when we could choose to not listen to God and live. Matthew 4:4.

I do find your post interesting and you are right to conclude that I see freewill a part of us having life as opposed to our ability to make moral or immoral decisions. To me, or will is expressed in our ability to choose. In other words, I will or want to do this or that based upon my thinking, and so I do this or that according to my freedom to choose. So the problem I have with suggesting we might not have freedom to do good of evil, or be moral or immoral, has to do with whether we want to follow God or not.

For example you wrote, "We should remember, that when mankind was created and given life, he was innocent without any knowledge of good and evil. They therefore had no comprehension of a lie, nor distrust, nor betrayal. They were not able to choose between good and evil, and also did not have any disability to distrust the intentions of their Maker."

The problem I have with that statement is that Adam and Eve were responsible even then for following the instructions God gave them. They were instructed to not eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was morally wrong for them to disobey God and they knew it!! So while I would agree that they were what we call "naïve", they still knew the He was God and thus He had to be listened to and obeyed. They knew that! And that was separate from and before eating from the tree.

The Lord was giving me a teaching this morning and it went; "He is God" says it all!

I now see that it applies to this case. If He is God, then it was morally wrong for Adam and Eve to eat of that tree! They had at that time the ability and the freedom to choose to follow the instruction that God gave them or not. Morality is based upon that, and that was before knowing the difference between good and evil. And I believe that is why God has made it about simply believing.

Abram was considered righteous, not because he did everything morally right, but because He heard the Lord speaking to Him and believed that the One talking to Him was God. So God's plan is about faith, not about our making moral or immoral decision! God's plan was about believing He is God and thus following His instructions, so our freewill is based upon seeking Him and doing what He says as opposed to trying to be moral or immoral. I believe trying to be moral or immoral puts us back under that Law, where as if we follow the Lord and do what He says we fulfill the law by doing what He says, and any failure to do it good enough is covered by His grace and forgiveness.

And if we call Him God and our Lord (meaning we will follow His instruction to us personally) then what boasting can I do. If I am doing what He says, then any good I do is a direct result of being obedient and all glory and even the credit for it goes to Him. So I have the freedom to do what He tells me as I will without any condemnation because He made me and surely knew what and how I would choose to do it.

So I believe that even Matt 4:4 is misunderstood by you. It reads, 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Abraham listened to God, believed it was God, and that belief, and not whether Abraham morally did everything correct, was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham had an Ishmael by sleeping with a lady that was not his wife. Is that morally right? I think not. Lucky for Abraham that he was a man of faith. So Abraham had the freedom to choose to make immoral choices and he did not loose his salvation. God used those bad choices to teach Abraham. And certainly Abraham did not have a "pure image of God" or why did he think that he needed to sleep with someone other than his wife so that God would give him children?

So I find it interesting to read your thoughts, childeye, but it seems to me you might be going back to the Law and that you might have wrong idea about our ability to understand God. We can't fully understanding God, like in having a "pure image of God", nor is our freedom wrapped up in moral or immoral issues, but rather in our belief that He who talks to us is God. He is God. If we believe that we seek His instructions and try to do what He says. We don't always get it right, but that is not the issue. The issue is believing He is God, and I have the ability to seek Him, listen to God, and to then freely act as I will, knowing He is God who I am following.

Yeah, He corrects me, reproves me, teaches me, but He never condemns me because I believe He is God. This gives me such a freedom and joy that I can't even understand how others don't understand this. When I seek God I get to freely do what I want, because I want to seek Him, based upon my belief.

I have had the Lord tell me that He wants me to do something. I know He is God, so I want to do what He tells me, but if I don't want to do what He says for whatever personal reasons, I can tell Him that and ask Him if He is willing to change His mind. He often does, but of course He sometimes doesn't and I include, because He is God, that not my will but His be done. He wants me to have the desires of my heart, so even those conversations were not about Him not knowing how I would choose but about me knowing how I would choose.

God is real, He is really there. I can really talk to Him. And I can be real with Him. I don't have to be perfect, because He is perfect. I don't have to fully understand the depths of God, because I can't. I have to believe He is there and that belief results in seeking Him because He is God. Because He is God I want to do what He says, but because I am me, I sometimes have problems doing that. But thanks be to God that my problems don't get in the way of His plan. So I have freedom in Jesus Christ, and it is a freedom of will. I willingly seek Him, because He loved me first. And I listen to Him, because He is God.

 

[K2CHRIST]

I call it taking God for granted in vanity, like claiming I am wise because I freely chose to be. Why say some people took God for granted when Romans 2:1 implies all, or at least the vast majority of mankind, has done so?

Now I like the above post. But what does it mean, " taking God for granted"?

I believe we have a freewill to take God for granted which leads to disbelief, because you then don't seek Him. If you don't seek Him, you don't find Him. God can choose to reveal Himself again to us, and He does do that, but if we take God for granted we are going to make that same choice again. Perhaps He can reveal Himself in a greater way, but will that lead to a belief that saves if we take Him for granted. Jesus told Bethesda and Corazon that if the miracles done in them would have been done in Sodom they would still be there. They took the miracles Jesus did for granted.

So what does it look like if we don't take Him for granted, I believe, it results in conversation with the Lord regularly, thus we seek to hear from Him. And if we hear from Him, we have things to others that He told us. And we will tell others some of them, like it is written "what you hear whispered in your ears, shout on the housetops.". In other words we will get zealous for Him and the words He speaks to people, so tell people about Him!

This morning I talked to Him about what we were doing today. He reminded me of the healing ministry I do with Him, and then He reminded me that someone I knew was moving, so I should talk to them and see if they need help. Then He asked me to go for a walk with Him. On the walk He gave me a teaching about how "He is God" should explain everything. All these things came via what we call the small voice. So I am not wise, I seek Him and see that He is wise. And because I see that I again seek Him with my freewill, and don't take Him for granted. I find the Word of God in my heart and on my lips. God is not dead. I see where others say "God is not dead" also, but they don't seem to hear from the Lord daily, and wonder what they do mean?

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm deadly serious. That's what it means to be His children and born of His Spirit. Hence Jesus did have God's Character as the Image of God and the son of God, which is what we are believing in at the heart of the Gospel. He is even referred to as the second Adam who also was also made in God's Image. What do you mean that no one has God's Character?

Being God's children means we have God's character?
So do we become God? Here's what character means:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
char′ac·ter·less adj.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
character
(ˈkærɪktə)
n
1. the combination of traits and qualities distinguishing the individual nature of a person or thing
2. one such distinguishing quality; characteristic
3. moral force; integrity: a man of character.

Or

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
char•ac•ter
(ˈkær ɪk tər)

n.
1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of a person or thing.
2. one such feature or trait; characteristic.
3. moral or ethical quality: a woman of strong character.
4. qualities of honesty, fortitude, etc.; integrity.
5. reputation: a stain on one's character.
6. distinctive, often interesting qualities: an old pub with a lot of character.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We were speaking of men, now you're speaking of Jesus. And Adam. Adam was made in the IMAGE of God. An image of something is not the real thing. A picture is an image, it's not the actual person.
Are you saying Adam was God? God made many little Gods?

Even Jesus, however, existing in the form of God, emptied Himself and became a bond-servent, made in the likeness and appearance of man. He HUMBLED Himself becoming obedient to the point of death.

We are obedient to God, we are not God.
Philippians 2:5-8

Are you aware that your posts imply that mankinds will has not been altered, and we still have the same freewill as when we were innocent and unable to be wicked?

I was explaining to you that we have SOME attributes that are in the image of God's attributes.
BTW, IF we were innocent and not able to be wicked -
WHAT made Eve eat the forbidden fruit??

Must go.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

This is what I take your meaning to be. That the Carnal minded and blind followers of the god of this world, cannot discern the spiritual things of God. But then you seem to contrarily imply they can freely choose not to with their freewill. Are they blind or not?

Where's the problem Childeye?
1. Romans 1:19-20
God has always revealed Himself to man; for example, through nature or through man's inner most knowledge that there must be something greater then himself.
Immediately after -
Romans 1:21
Even though God reveals Himself, some will deny He even exists.

These that deny God exists are those in
1 Corinthians 2:14

They are the "natural man" who does NOT ACCEPT the things of the spirit of God. They do not accept the God, the creator of the universe, that has revealed Himself to them.

Are we blind or not?
Those who REFUSE to see are blind to the truth. They turn themselves OFF to the Word of God.

I just said earlier that Adam had God's Character revealed in himself, and you asked if I was serious. Now you claim the same thing I said. You probably misunderstood me. As pertaining to blindness, the Gospel does make some blind as part of God's purpose. John 9:39.
I call it taking God for granted in vanity, like claiming I am wise because I freely chose to be. Why say some people took God for granted when Romans 2:1 implies all, or at least the vast majority of mankind, has done so?

I most certainly would not say the gospel makes some blind. The gospel is told to open men's eyes, to make them know the truth, so that the truth may set them free. Free from the bondage of sin, free from the whims of satan, free to have true freedom which is belief in God and following in His ways, the freedom to choose the good.

The gospel announces freedom to those who listen, or, I might say life. It announces death to those who reject it. If they did not know they were dead in their sin before, they certainly know it after the gospel has been preached to them.

Before John 9:39 Jesus had just healed a man of blindness. The man was thankful for this, but the pharisees did not want to believe. They even said Jesus was not from God, implying He was doing the work of satan.
Go down to John 9:41
The pharisees thought they saw, so their sin remained. To them the gospel was a gospel of death since they didn't believe in the truth. See John 3:19 - they loved the darkness more than the light.
And since they did not honor the Son, they also did not honor the Father,
John 5:23
The light of Jesus made them blind because they could not accept.
To those that accept, the light of Jesus is life.

W

 

[childeye]

I do find your post interesting and you are right to conclude that I see freewill a part of us having life as opposed to our ability to make moral or immoral decisions. To me, or will is expressed in our ability to choose. In other words, I will or want to do this or that based upon my thinking,

This 1st part is well said.

and so I do this or that according to my freedom to choose.

This 2nd part appears to me to be contrary to what you said before. For in the 1st part you said the will is expressed by what we want to do based upon our thinking, which is absolutely true. But in the 2nd part, you now say that it is according to your freedom to choose. So let's say I see a homeless crippled man with his hat out begging, and there are a few dollars in the hat. I now must choose whether I should give him some money or not. The choice/option exists by circumstance and so my choice one way or the other is inevitable. But what do I want to do? Let's say I want to hand the beggar five dollars, for I feel for the plight of the person. I am being moved by empathy in my thoughts, feelings, and my will/desire will reflect that. I therefore do not have a freewill to choose to want/will/desire to beat the beggar with a baseball bat and take his few dollars. That is not in me to be able to do. My will/desire is not free to choose to do that. Why can't I want to choose to do that, nor choose to want to do that, even though I know that others can and have done so? Because I must surmise that it is because I have the Spirit of God restraining me from such evil and I therefore cannot have any will/desire to hurt the person. I also must surmise that others who would will to do so do not, and I would be just like them without His Spirit within me. And I therefore worship God with all my heart mind and soul with this knowledge. So I disagree that we walk in the Spirit according to any alleged freedom to choose.

So the problem I have with suggesting we might not have freedom to do good of evil, or be moral or immoral, has to do with whether we want to follow God or not.

Well let's address that problem. My testimony in all honesty before God, is that I cannot freely choose, in one instant, to hate God, spit at the cross of Christ, and then in the next moment freely decide to Love God with all of my heart and adore the Christ and then back again. I can't do it.

For example you wrote, "We should remember, that when mankind was created and given life, he was innocent without any knowledge of good and evil. They therefore had no comprehension of a lie, nor distrust, nor betrayal. They were not able to choose between good and evil, and also did not have any disability to distrust the intentions of their Maker."

The problem I have with that statement is that Adam and Eve were responsible even then for following the instructions God gave them.

I believe that God trusted them to believe Him, and I also believe that they did trust Him just as God believed they would. That's why they didn't eat at any time prior to the episode with the serpent, nor did they want to die.

It was morally wrong for them to disobey God and they knew it!!

This is an assertion. We don't know that they knew it was morally wrong. They didn't volunteer to eat of themselves, they were tricked into it by a subtle lie. There was no Truth in what they were believing when they ate.

So while I would agree that they were what we call "naïve", they still knew the He was God and thus He had to be listened to and obeyed. They knew that! And that was separate from and before eating from the tree.

I would say that evidently they were uncertain whether they had to listen to God and obey Him after hearing the serpents presentation. This is why I say this. Because the real question being placed before them is whether God is being forthright with them or not, even though it was presented subtly in the form of subterfuge. God's integrity is being challenged here, and they are pondering if it's okay to disobey because God is lying to them and keeping them from something great.

These thoughts are being placed in their minds by someone more cunning than they, who knows how to deceive with improvable innuendo and false premise. I don't see how they would have eaten if they knew for certain that God was saying the truth and looking out for their best interests. It is an issue of doubt in one's intentions being experienced for the first time by the gullible. Moreover, when Eve said she was beguiled, God did not say she was lying. Adam probably knew better, but his fault was that he trusted the woman's appraisal, which implies a lack of self-confidence in this matter. At any rate they could not know God is a liar and a tyrant since He isn't. Therefore they were duped. I sincerely believe that the spirit behind freewill is about blame. Hence Jesus says, "forgive them for they know not what they do" and takes the blame. The devil is the blamer, whom Jesus defeats through his death and resurrection. Revelation 12:10.

So here's my judgment on the matter. We all have done the same thing Adam and Eve did in some form or another. We have no room to talk as if we would have never been duped by Satan when in fact we have been. Any claim by us sinners that they knew what they were doing and that God should have been obeyed, is only hypocritical and self condemning. Even Paul knew that Satan was a clever liar. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

All things are built on faith and many people still do not see why that is. I seriously doubt Adam and Eve knew that, nor comprehended why. Therefore it is now perfectly clear that God is trustworthy without question, even because He sends His son to pay the price for sin. But that doesn't mean men have a freewill, especially since men still persecute others believing they are serving God. Look at the inquisitions where people were burned alive, and Saul stoning Stephen to death, and Jesus being horribly crucified. Just look at the many wars that have been fought in God's Name and in the Name of the Christ, with both sides sincerely believing that they are choosing to faithfully serve God. I cannot just ignore this evidence and remain honest before God.

The Lord was giving me a teaching this morning and it went; "He is God" says it all!

I now see that it applies to this case. If He is God, then it was morally wrong for Adam and Eve to eat of that tree!

It was wrong to even ponder the suggestion that God is a liar.

They had at that time the ability and the freedom to choose to follow the instruction that God gave them or not.

Respectfully this statement carries a spirit of accusation based on freewill. To establish culpability the question that should be answered is, did they have the mental capacity to outwit the serpent?

Abram was considered righteous, not because he did everything morally right, but because He heard the Lord speaking to Him and believed that the One talking to Him was God. So God's plan is about faith, not about our making moral or immoral decision!

I agree with this.

God's plan was about believing He is God and thus following His instructions, so our freewill is based upon seeking Him and doing what He says as opposed to trying to be moral or immoral. I believe trying to be moral or immoral puts us back under that Law, where as if we follow the Lord and do what He says we fulfill the law by doing what He says, and any failure to do it good enough is covered by His grace and forgiveness.

I think that Love fulfills the law so that we should trust in Love and not abandon it out of fear of what it might cost us. Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself. I don't think men can try to be moral and achieve righteousness, but that they will be morally sound and righteous if God's Spirit resides in them and they in Him.

So I believe that even Matt 4:4 is misunderstood by you. It reads, 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

I said this in response to your statement: God can encourage us to listen but He can not take away our ability to choose and still have life. I am expressing the fact that if we don't listen to God we die, since we live by His Word. So we don't have a choice to not listen and yet live. It was the serpent who said to Eve we could choose to not listen to God and live.

So I find it interesting to read your thoughts, childeye, but it seems to me you might be going back to the Law and that you might have wrong idea about our ability to understand God. We can't fully understanding God, like in having a "pure image of God", nor is our freedom wrapped up in moral or immoral issues, but rather in our belief that He who talks to us is God. He is God.

I appreciate your forthright concern, so let me assure you that I'm not going back to the law, and I'm not sure what I have said that would cause you to think that.

 

[K2CHRIST]

So let's say I see a homeless crippled man with his hat out begging, and there are a few dollars in the hat. I now must choose whether I should give him some money or not. The choice/option exists by circumstance and so my choice one way or the other is inevitable. But what do I want to do? Let's say I want to hand the beggar five dollars, for I feel for the plight of the person. I am being moved by empathy in my thoughts, feelings, and my will/desire will reflect that. I therefore do not have a freewill to choose to want/will/desire to beat the beggar with a baseball bat and take his few dollars.

Let's take the above example because I find it interesting and good for examining.

Now we did agree that perhaps we have a different definition of freewill, and we obviously do. Because I see where a person has been given the ability and freedom to choose based upon their want/will/desire, and even the ability to choose to beat the beggar with a baseball bat and take his few dollars. That has been done.

That freedom to choose came from God with our life. God must have known Cain would kill able and thus could certainly have prevented Cain from killing Able, but since it was God who choose to give us freewill, is He now supposes to prevent this evil from happening. We see in this life that He does just stop evil things from happening. That is because He gave us freewill. That doesn't mean He approves or does nothing about evil. He uses our evil intent that sometimes does come out to teach us and reproved us.

So why does a person not want/will/desire to beat the beggar and take his few dollars. Certainly something could have been gotten with those dollars. The reason is that they have been being taught or influenced by God, though they might not have been aware of it. Therefore your not wanting to take the dollars has nothing to do with your freewill but God's influence, which by your freewill you could have rejected. So since it some people have beaten up a beggar to taken his money, they must have been rejecting God's influence in their life. Satan would have used his freewill to beat up the beggar and taken his money, by virtue of his freewill. Some are influenced by him. But all life is given freewill.

Now we like to say we have freedom in the USA. That may not be 100% true but by comparison we do let people make more choices in their life that other societies. That is what we mean by freedom. God gives us real freedom, even the freedom to choose to kill. And we do choose to kill. That is what happen with Jesus Christ. Men choose to kill Him, instead of listen and follow Him, though God had made Him King of the Kingdom of God.

In the above example I find one thing disturbing. No mention was made of the option of turning to God and asking Him what should be done when the beggar asked for money!

My friends, we have God always with us. If there is a question of how much money should be given to a beggar or to a church for that matter, shouldn't we ask the Lord. Jesus asked, why we call Him Lord and do not do what He says. I think it is because we have such little faith in His existence as a God who is always with us, that it doesn't even occur to us to seek His advice!! So we say give 10% to that church according to a rule or Law of God, instead of seeking the Lord who is always with us and listening to Him.

With our ears we don't hear and with our eyes we don't see. With our freewill we could choose to seek the Lord when confronted with a beggar, but we don't. We use our freewill to do what we think is right instead of repenting of our ways and turning to Him. Maybe that beggar need a place to stay, or perhaps a message to be given to him. So how much to give him was never the only choice. We could have chosen to seek God. We are sinners who for the most part reject God, So we are saved by faith, but what type of faith is it when it doesn't occur to ask God about what's best to do?

Of course God knew all that would happen. He knew that Lucifer would fall. He knew that Cain would kill. He knows that we ignore that fact that He is there with us and tend to take Him for granted. But He loves us and a remnant will be saved according to His plan and election. Use your freewill to seek Him and you are part of that remnant and just because He knew, planned, and elected you doesn't mean you didn't chose to believe and seek Him. But if you forget that seeking Him is even an option, perhaps you need to take a closer look at your thinking?

Ps 105:04 Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always

 

[GodsGrace]

Let's take the above example because I find it interesting and good for examining.

Now we did agree that perhaps we have a different definition of freewill, and we obviously do. Because I see where a person has been given the ability and freedom to choose based upon their want/will/desire, and even the ability to choose to beat the beggar with a baseball bat and take his few dollars. That has been done.

...

Of course God knew all that would happen. He knew that Lucifer would fall. He knew that Cain would kill. He knows that we ignore that fact that He is there with us and tend to take Him for granted. But He loves us and a remnant will be saved according to His plan and election. Use your freewill to seek Him and you are part of that remnant and just because He knew, planned, and elected you doesn't mean you didn't chose to believe and seek Him. But if you forget that seeking Him is even an option, perhaps you need to take a closer look at your thinking?

Ps 105:04 Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always

I'm reading your posts and really agree with them.
But I'm very confused as to what your belief is.
You believe that God knew, planned and elected...
but that doesn't mean you didn't choose to believe and seek Him...
(highlighted and underlined above).

So you think God ELECTED those of His choosing
BUT it's still up to each individual to believe and seek Him.

Is this correct?

Wondering

 

[K2CHRIST]

So you think God ELECTED those of His choosing
BUT it's still up to each individual to believe and seek Him.

Is this correct?

Yes

In my case, specifically, i1 1999 He gave me a weird feeling that sent chills into my arms. Then both my cars broke at the exact same time, and it was at a time when I was planning a very important trip. I was brought to consider whether God might be real and behind what had suddenly happened in my life. But being unaware of spiritual things I spoke out loud to God and asked Him "Ok God, if this is you, what are you trying to tell me?" I listened with my physical ears and didn't hear a thing. So I told Him, "OK God, I tried to listen to you and if you can't talk to me, I tried." About a mouth or so later He got threw to me and woke me up one morning with three words, "READ YOUR BIBLE!" Those words shook me up good, and so I did. And things happen, to where I learned I could hear from Him with spiritual ears, because God is spirit.

So in my specific case. God cause a supernatural feeling to come upon me and He caused both cars to break down at once at just the right moment, which caused me to seek Him. It is written that all those who seek found, and so He made sure He was found when I sought Him. He started it, I believe He planned it, but I still had choice to seek Him or not. And I believe that choice, is a choice we should make daily and through out the day. The one time choice may be enough to save us, but He means it to be more than a one time choice. We need to seek Him daily, and we have the freedom to seek Him daily or not.

 

[K2CHRIST]

So let's say I see a homeless crippled man with his hat out begging, and there are a few dollars in the hat. I now must choose whether I should give him some money or not. The choice/option exists by circumstance and so my choice one way or the other is inevitable. But what do I want to do? Let's say I want to hand the beggar five dollars, for I feel for the plight of the person. I am being moved by empathy in my thoughts, feelings, and my will/desire will reflect that. I therefore do not have a freewill to choose to want/will/desire to beat the beggar with a baseball bat and take his few dollars. That is not in me to be able to do. My will/desire is not free to choose to do that. Why can't I want to choose to do that, nor choose to want to do that, even though I know that others can and have done so? Because I must surmise that it is because I have the Spirit of God restraining me from such evil and I therefore cannot have any will/desire to hurt the person. I also must surmise that others who would will to do so do not, and I would be just like them without His Spirit within me. And I therefore worship God with all my heart mind and soul with this knowledge. So I disagree that we walk in the Spirit according to any alleged freedom to choose.

I commented on this once above, stating that I believe we can choose and that seeking God is an option not considered in this hypothetical story. What I didn't point out was the God was taken for granted in the above post. The conclusion is based upon an assumption that God was controlling the actions, without actually seeking God to make sure that was true. Let me give a true story that happened in my life, and I think you can see the difference.

One day I pulled into a gas station to get gas. I very young man walked up and asked me for money so he could take a bus. Knowing and fearing God I instantly looked into my wallet but saw that I did not have any money at the time. I had paid for the gas with my ATM. I apologize to the young man, and wondered how come I didn't have money when I had been asked. My Lord usually has me equipped with what I need at all times. So I asked the Lord, "God I am sorry, but what was I to do?"

The Lord responded. "Karl, you could have given him a ride so he wouldn't need the bus."

Oh God is so funny, I had a lot to do that day and I didn't know how far that man was going. Yet after God speak you reconsider. So I went to find the man and see if I could give him a lift, but he wasn't at the gas station. I then turned back to the Lord and said, "Lord, the man is not at the gas station. I guess I messed up."

Then the Lord responded, "Karl, he is walking across the street to the other gas station."

God amazes me when I choose to listen to Him. I looked, and sure enough the man was in the cross walk heading to the other gas station. So I finished filling up and drove over there, expecting to give the man a lift. Yet to my surprise he was with another young guy and a young girl. Of course, being me, I thought 'oh well I am going to be giving the three them a lift! What He gets me into!'

And still it got stranger. There was a Mac Donald's at the gas station and the two young men had gone inside when I pulled up. So I went to talk to the girl. Oh my! She looked so bad and so discourage, and she was cold and shivering. She looked so hungry, like a little starving puppy that had been left out in the rain. Now I was looking though my car to see if I had any spare change anywhere to give to her. Like most cars, I found almost a dollars worth and change here and there in my car. They boys (now I was seeing more clearly) had just come out with something for her to eat.

They all wanted a ride to the maul. And so I took them and heard a story that broke my heart. They had all just graduated high school. She had gone home only to be kick out of her house my her mom and sister. They were no longer willing not felt obligated to take care of her, so she had just spent her first night on the street. The two boys were her classmate who were trying to help her. They felt they could find more of their friends at the maul a thus wanted to take her there to find her help.

My emotions at the time the boy had ask me for bus faith were not able to help me understand the needs and desires of God, only talking to God and listening to Him lead me to find out what I did. I couldn't and didn't consider all the options when I was asked, but it only started to become apparent when I actually sought the Lord for advice and listened to Him. So the conclusion that your emotions are controlled by God to such an extent that He controls your will is a false and wrong conclusion. We have the freedom to seek Him or not. To try to do things right based upon you understanding of God is nothing more that trying to live by the Law instead of living through your relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[WIP]

This thread has been straying a bit from the Forum Guidelines in that there is a lot of personal discussion without providing the Scriptural support for what is being presented. Please consider the Forum Guidelines when posting.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes

In my case, specifically, i1 1999 He gave me a weird feeling that sent chills into my arms. Then both my cars broke at the exact same time, and it was at a time when I was planning a very important trip. I was brought to consider whether God might be real and behind what had suddenly happened in my life. But being unaware of spiritual things I spoke out loud to God and asked Him "Ok God, if this is you, what are you trying to tell me?" I listened with my physical ears and didn't hear a thing. So I told Him, "OK God, I tried to listen to you and if you can't talk to me, I tried." About a mouth or so later He got threw to me and woke me up one morning with three words, "READ YOUR BIBLE!" Those words shook me up good, and so I did. And things happen, to where I learned I could hear from Him with spiritual ears, because God is spirit.

So in my specific case. God cause a supernatural feeling to come upon me and He caused both cars to break down at once at just the right moment, which caused me to seek Him. It is written that all those who seek found, and so He made sure He was found when I sought Him. He started it, I believe He planned it, but I still had choice to seek Him or not. And I believe that choice, is a choice we should make daily and through out the day. The one time choice may be enough to save us, but He means it to be more than a one time choice. We need to seek Him daily, and we have the freedom to seek Him daily or not.

K2CHRIST
Thanks for the nice testimony. It also helps me to reply.
What you experienced is a normal born-again experience. God draws all men to Him, Romans 1:19-20 and 1 Timothy 2:4, and if and when we're ready to accept Him, we begin to hear His voice, John 10:27, and to respond. We begin to attribute everything that happens to us to God.

I must say, though, that your "YES" answer to my question is confusing.

One either believes that he has free will to either accept salvation or deny it.
OR
One believes that God predestined everything before the foundation of the earth and that He picked who will be saved and who will be lost.

You cannot believe both simultaneously. In your case I'd say that you believe in the first example, which would be free will. I am of this persuasion.

But then you cannot say that God predestined you to be saved. Which would mean that you had no choice in the matter.

Do you not see the conflict?

Wondering

 

[Christ_empowered]

what about prevenient grace? That's what I'm leaning towards these days...

 

[GodsGrace]

what about prevenient grace? That's what I'm leaning towards these days...

Would you care to explain what you understand prevenient grace to be?

ITMT, I'll just say that God's grace is forever present and falls on everyone, as does the rain.

Wondering

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think...OK...I think that we need divine grace to have faith, but not everybody who receives such grace ends up a Christian because one can resist this grace and God will only deal with people for so long before they/we are handed over to a reprobate mind.

 

[JLB]

I think...OK...I think that we need divine grace to have faith, but not everybody who receives such grace ends up a Christian because one can resist this grace and God will only deal with people for so long before they/we are handed over to a reprobate mind.

Well said.!



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I think...OK...I think that we need divine grace to have faith, but not everybody who receives such grace ends up a Christian because one can resist this grace and God will only deal with people for so long before they/we are handed over to a reprobate mind.

Perfectly said CE.
Grace is God's free love and His favor. Of which we deserve neither. This grace is available to everyone since it is poured out to everyone. God does not withhold His grace from any man.

This grace is necessary in order to make it possible for us to respond to that grace. God is always reaching out to man. God always makes the first move. He desires to reveal Himself to us.

When touched by this grace, man can either accept God's call and turn toward Him and away from sin, or He could reject God's call.

So leaning toward prevenient grace is good!

Wondering

 

[ivdavid]

They had faith.

Did they believe. No.

In this context, you seem to have defined the word "believe" differently from the word "faith" - while actually they amount to the same meaning, "faith" being the noun form of the verb "to believe in". So, to have faith in someone would be the same as to believe in that person. Do you understand this differently?

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

Those who hear the Gospel have faith.

This seems like a case of the Converse Error.

Rom 10:17a flows as a conclusion from Rom 10:14 - how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?

if P = they believe in Christ / they have faith.
and if Q = they have heard the Gospel of Christ.

then the Scripture presented permits only the following 2 logically valid conclusions -
1. P implies Q = if P, then Q = if they believe in Christ / they have faith, then they have heard the Gospel of Christ.
2. and negation of Q implies negation of P = if Not Q, then Not P = if they have not heard the Gospel of Christ, then they don't believe in Christ / they don't have faith.

The following are logically invalid -
1. Q implies P = if Q, then P = if they have heard the Gospel of Christ, then they believe in Christ / they have faith.
2. negation of P implies negation of Q = if Not P, then Not Q = if they don't believe in Christ / they don't have faith, then they have not heard the Gospel of Christ.

You seem to be stating the invalid statement, Q implies P - could you clarify?

 

[GodsGrace]

In this context, you seem to have defined the word "believe" differently from the word "faith" - while actually they amount to the same meaning, "faith" being the noun form of the verb "to believe in". So, to have faith in someone would be the same as to believe in that person. Do you understand this differently?

This seems like a case of the Converse Error.

Rom 10:17a flows as a conclusion from Rom 10:14 - how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?

if P = they believe in Christ / they have faith.
and if Q = they have heard the Gospel of Christ.

then the Scripture presented permits only the following 2 logically valid conclusions -
1. P implies Q = if P, then Q = if they believe in Christ / they have faith, then they have heard the Gospel of Christ.
2. and negation of Q implies negation of P = if Not Q, then Not P = if they have not heard the Gospel of Christ, then they don't believe in Christ / they don't have faith.

The following are logically invalid -
1. Q implies P = if Q, then P = if they have heard the Gospel of Christ, then they believe in Christ / they have faith.
2. negation of P implies negation of Q = if Not P, then Not Q = if they don't believe in Christ / they don't have faith, then they have not heard the Gospel of Christ.

You seem to be stating the invalid statement, Q implies P - could you clarify?

There MUST be a more complicated way of asking whatever it is you wish to know...

W